Diversity in Geek Culture

A while back, Marvel decided to make Thor a woman. This made a lot of geeks really, really mad. I understand why they're pissed, but at the same time, I think their logic is flawed. Here's why.

And before you go down into the comment section, just know that I, too, am a giant nerd. I get where you're coming from and, as I said, I see where you're coming from. Simply put, I'm one of you. With that out of the way, let's get to it.

Also keep in mind that these are my own opinions, based on my own experiences. At the end of the day, that's all I can really speak to.

Geeks are a special breed. Many of us got picked on for being socially awkward, or day, or whatever. We are not an oppressed minority, but most of us were made to feel that way by people who were supposed to be our friends. The majority of us filled the holes left by that trauma with pop culture. In the absence of any real self-esteem, comic books became a sort of replacement for that. Star Trek isn't just a show you like. Rather, it's an emblem, a sign of who you are as a person.

So when someone changes something about it, it sort of feels like they're invalidating your identity. "If Thor is a lady, then who the fuck am I?" Geeks don't like change, because we spent years trying to find a place where we fit in. It took a lot of work, and now someone is fucking it all up.

I've been there. I get it.

But that's a bullshit mentality, man. It doesn't make any logical sense. Because the original stories that you love, that you identify so strongly with, those still exist. Nobody is taking your copy of Avengers no 1 and drawing a vagina on Thor. You can still enjoy that shit.

By making Thor a woman, you're opening up those stories, and the ones that will come after, to millions of new readers. Let's face it. Comics have been broadcasting chiefly to straight white males for a long, long time. Making Thor a women will broadcast the medium to new people, which will inspire them to check out the older stuff. Inclusivity can only be a good thing, because it brings us together. It opens you up to new experiences and new ways of looking at the world.

And that's awesome, man.

Just something to think about.

Is Age of Ultron Sexist?

Is Age Of Ultron Sexist?

Chris Costello

As I’ve stated previously on this blog and elsewhere, I am a strident feminist. (You can read about why this is here.) I am also a comic book fan, particularly of Marvel. These two facets of my personality often clash, as the way women are often depicted in comics boarders on despicable. Objectification is common, as is the portrayal of some women as damsels in distress who need men to save them. Things are improving on this front, but the fight isn’t over just yet.

I think that’s why some feminists were so outspoken about the new Avenger’s film, Age of Ultron. In it, Black Widow is revealed to be sterile. Her uterus was, in fact, forcibly removed by the organization that trained her and used her as a weapon. In her own words, “They take away the one thing that might matter more than the mission.” 

This is where some feminists take issue with the film. Every character on the Avengers team has some kind of personal tragedy they must overcome. Iron Man is a genius, but he is also an alcoholic with anxiety disorder. Thor is a literal god, trying to find his place among mortals. Steve Rogers is a super-soldier from World War Two, trying to reconcile his past upbringing with the values of this strange new world he finds himself in. The Hulk transforms into an enormous green rage monster at the slightest provocation.

Hawkeye is a reformed criminal with no superhuman abilities, struggling to fit in amongst not only living myths, but also heroes. He worries that he is not fundamentally good. 

Black Widow can’t have kids.

When put into perspective, her tragedy seems almost inconsequential. It lacks the earth-shattering relevance of the trials faced by the others. The reason for this, to critics, is because Joss Whedon believes that women are meant to have children. If that’s the thing Widow cares about so much, then it must mean that all women are obsessed with starting families...right?

I don’t think so. Never mind that Whedon himself is an outspoken feminist and even supported Anita Sarkisian at one time or another. Many feminists, myself included, have called into question the legitimacy of his claims on this matter, so maybe we shouldn’t take it into account now. I’m okay with that.

I disagree with many feminists on this issue for one key reason. I don’t think Whedon was trying to make a point about gender. I think Black Widow wanted kids, and when that ability was taken from her, it hurt. It was purely a character moment. It has nothing to do with gender or women as a whole. It concerns Black Widow and no one else.

That’s my take on things. I enjoyed the scene, I thought it packed a hefty emotional punch, and it offered Widow some much-needed character development. You could argue that the development she did receive did not serve to differentiate the character from other female characters in her position, and I understand where you’re coming from, especially given her romance with Bruce Banner, which felt tacked-on and unnecessary.

I just disagree. I don’t think Age of Ultron is sexist. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

Until someone else makes a more persuasive argument, of course. Open-mindedness is the most important thing when we’re discussing important issues like this one.

Just something to think about.

Of Mice and X-men

Of Mice and X-men

Chris Costello

 I like X-men.

In fact, my opinion on the X-men franchise does not often differ from popular consensus. But in light of Iceman being outed as gay in the pages of New X-men #40, I feel that I need to discuss a few problems I have with the series, and the ways in which we might go about repairing them. Buckle up, everyone.

My first problem with the X-men isn’t so much an issue I have with those characters specifically, but rather with the Marvel Universe as a whole. Namely, that the X-men exist in it at all. See, the X-men are analogues for every oppressed minority out there, from the black civil rights movement in the sixties to the worldwide struggle for gay rights today. If the mutants are supposed to be a metaphor, it’s odd that they would routinely do battle with malicious aliens for the fate of the world. They ought to be dealing with more sober, socially relevant issues in their stories. But the Kree and other evil extraterrestrials are integral to the Marvel Universe, which is why the X-men never felt like a real part of that canon. Nor should they.

But here’s the thing. The X-men are not analogous to oppressed minorities, for the simple fact that, unlike literally every other oppressed group in the world, it is totally okay to fear them. Some of them, anyway. Think about it this way: Is it so wrong to be terrified of somebody who can burn you alive just by staring at you? Is it wrong to refuse someone who is always on fire service at your restaurant? In both those cases, you and others would be infinitely more safe than if you had allowed them into your society.

Now, that’s a similar argument to the one that Christian bigots use against same-sex couples, but the X-men are actual living weapons, whereas gay people are, shocker, just people.

So, the metaphor falls apart no matter how you slice it. Now is about the time when I would save the day and tell you how to fix the problem. But, to be honest, I don’t know how you would fix this particular problem. See, the flaw is inherent in the Marvel Universe. The X-men are an integral part of it, and that isn’t going to change. Like gun control, we’ve gone too deep to do anything about it. I fear that this is a lost cause.

But, hey, you know what they say. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Just something to think about.

Batman And Morality

Gotham, The Dark Knight, and The Subjective Nature Of Morality

Chris Costello

I like Gotham. Now, before you lynch me for having terrible taste, let me explain. I know that the show can be over the top, in particular with the depiction of the Riddler’s insanity in the most recent episode (Smashing a skull with a hammer is a little on-the-nose, if you ask me). I have some things to say about that incident in specific, but it ties into the broader point I’m trying to make here, so we’ll loop back around to that.

The other criticism viewers of the show have is that it is illogical. The idea that Bruce Wayne, as an eight-year-old, could not only track down a hired assassin but also push him out a window is ludicrous. I agree with that assessment, to some extent. But let me tell you why the ruthless, intelligent, and frighteningly competent characterization of young Bruce makes sense within the larger themes of the Batman mythos. Here we go.

The most terrifying thing about villains is that they don’t know they’re the bad guy. This might seem like a departure from the thesis I outlined above, but bare with me. All of this will make sense by the end of this thing, I promise. Anyway, back to that thing I said about villains a second ago. The way to write an interesting villain is to give them a Machiavellian end justifies the means mentality. The villains, even the truly, criminally insane ones, must believe that their actions are necessary for the greater good. Joker must think that killing Batman will improve Gotham. Lex Luthor has to believe that Superman is bad for the world. Good, or rather interesting, villains believe that their brand of psychotic, murderous vigilante justice is the right way to do things.

And so does Batman. At his core, Bruce Wayne, even as an adult, is a child who watched his parents die. He was unable to stop an objectively evil event from occurring, and it broke him. He is shattered because of what happened, and what he could not do. It was this shattering, this insanity, that led him to put on the bat-suit. Rather than using his vast fortune to Improve the city he claims to love by, say, buying houses personally for all Gotham’s disadvantaged citizens. 

Rather than donating to the police and using legal channels to fight the crime he professes to hate, he turned himself into a warrior. A weapon. He sunk untold amounts of money and time into beating the shit out of criminals, into ‘cleaning up the streets.’ And he did it because he’s broken. He is so wounded that he believes the only way to work trough his unsolved aggression (He never got therapy, remember), and to ostensibly improve Gotham City, is to put on a costume and smash some heads. He inflicts violent physical and emotional harm onto people, which would be tantamount to torture if we preformed it on even the most despicable terrorists. 

But it’s okay, because everything Batman does is for the greater good.

Are you noticing a pattern here? Both Batman and his enemies believe that their specific brand of psychosis will help make the world a better place. This means that morality is subjective, but so what? What does any of this have to do with Gotham and its characterizations of both Young Bruce and The Riddler? Well, I’m glad you asked. 

The point of Batman, to me, is to show the subjectivity of morality. It’s about confronting our own demons and realizing that humanity is a whole. A hive. We are not so different from whoever, or whatever, we consider to be evil. We can all become evil, if we allow our emotions to cloud our actions. Wayne was angry, so he lashed out and became violent as Batman. That’s the whole freaking point of the character.

And that’s why Gotham works, at least as far as Young Bruce is concerned. He’s ruthless, murderous, and calculating. He’s damaged. He is on the path of a villain, or at least a competently written one. The fact that he’s on this path earlier than in the comments serves to tell the audience that this can happen to anyone. The subjectivity of the ‘greater good’ is timeless.

From a story point of view, the timeline allows for a more realistic portrayal of recovery. Healing Bruce’s shattered psyche will not happen overnight. By allowing him to confront his malicious nature early in life, we can see the entire journey. Grown Bruce still has to heal, he still has to get back to normal. And now he’s been entrenched in rage from a young age, so it’s even harder for him to climb out of that pit of darkness. That’s dark and complex without being moody. That’s the essence of Batman.

Now let’s look at Gotham’s interpretation of The Ridder. Edward Nygma is crazy. He dismembered a man and smashed his skull into little pieces with a hammer. That’s crazy, pure and simple. But the guy he killed was an abusive asshole, and he was hurting the woman Nygma loves. Therefore, he’s doing good. This is what makes the psyche of Bruce Wayne so interesting. Because it’s not that different from that of one of his greatest villains. It is this moral quandary that makes the story and the mythos of Batman so freaking compelling.

Now, you might say that the Riddler and Batman are different because the latter doesn’t kill, at least not outright. I think Batman is a murderer regardless. He breaks thug’s bones regularly, and I’ve never once seen him call an ambulance for one of those guys. Leaving someone for dead, to me, is just as bad as killing them. It might even be worse. This is a subjective point, as is all morality, but whatever. It really has no bearing on the rest of this essay.

Let’s assume that Batman agrees with my hypothetical reader, as opposed to me. He doesn’t kill. He might have confronted and made peace with the psychotic nature of his actions, but that is the one line he won’t cross. If this is true, then the Riddler represents what he might become. If Batman continues down his current path, then he might eventually lose whatever thread of sanity he has been clinging onto. The Riddler is Batman taken to his logical extreme. He’s a villain, and a really insane one. Now, the Joker might’ve filled this role in the comic books, but after his stellar portrayal by Heath Ledger in Nolan’s Batman films, and the upcoming butchering of the character in Suicide Squad, I think that character deserves a rest. Don’t you?

That’s why I like Gotham. It gives us a glimpse inside the mind of a mentally-ill man with tremendous power and influence, and a tremendous amount of work to do in the healing process. All this while teaching us a little something about the nature of morality. Plus, it’s still a relatively interesting show. If you ask me, that’s what every superhero story should strive to do.

As a side note, this complex morality presented in Batman is why Dawn of Justice will presumably be terrible. See, Superman is a boring character. The fact is, he’s a bland goody-two-shoes with an outdated sense of right and wrong. But he can work as an archetype. He can be the pinnacle of heroism, the thing that every other superhero, and indeed every regular person, is aiming to be.

It is in this capacity that the character works as a foil for Batman. Clark’s unwavering sense of justice serves as a poignant counterpoint to Bruce’s torn, villainous mindset. He forces Batman to confront another idea of what a real hero is. With Superman by his side, Batman has a beacon of hope to look towards. He knows what a really good person looks like. And, put simply, it isn’t him. The Batman-Superman relationship is just another facet of the moral puzzle the series presents (Side note: Robin is also an excellent foil for Batman, who serves the exact same purpose. Not that it matters right now).

But it simply does not exist within the Superman depicted in Man of Steel and, by extension, the forthcoming Dawn of Justice. Jesus Christ, is that really the goddamned title? Seriously? Whatever. In that film, Superman wears dark gray and muted red, and he is distraught over the destruction of his homeworld. He’s no longer the shining, primary-colored light we all look up to. He’s a murderer, even going so far as to snap the neck of Zod, the villain of the movie. 

I know he did that in the comics, too, but at least there was some emotional conflict involved. Here, he just kills and then whines about it. They’re trying to pack some emotional punch, but it falls flat because he’s just a gritty asshole. Instead of overcoming his grief, and showing that everyone has to make hard choices sometimes, but that we can still overcome them, he wallows in his own self-pity for half an hour. Brilliant, right?

In simple terms, the new Man of Steel is Batman. Now that they are both dark, conflicted characters, there’s no counterpoint, and neither is forced to evaluate their own choices with a critical eye. It’s not how that dynamic is supposed to play out, and that is why the film will surely be awful.

Zod, by the way, is just as grim and serious, if a bit more unhinged, than the title character. Then again, they both destroy the city, so can you really call Superman a hero in this context. That works with the Dark Knight, but it just isn’t who Superman is.

The subjectivity of morality is not present in the new dynamic, meaning that the two characters have no conflict, and thus no reason to fight one another. Batman Versus Superman is not a feasible path to take. Maybe they’ll do something new and interesting with that relationship, but I’m skeptical of that. Is that cynical? Sure. But at least I’m right.

But, then again, this last bit is all speculation, so maybe they’ll go in a completely different direction with their relationship. Even if they include a different metaphor, independent of all my talk about morality. Somehow, I really doubt it.

Just something to think about.